Luther's Theology of the Cross

[Contarini]

Edwin - how Protestant were you (if ever)?

I’m not sure what that means. My background is Wesleyan Holiness, so on soteriological issues I was always much closer to Catholicism than a Lutheran or Reformed or Baptist Protestant would be. However, my family didn’t recognize this–I was taught that Catholics were all wrong about salvation and thought they could earn heaven through empty rituals. But the emphasis was always on the fact that this ritualism took the place of real sanctification–I heard a lot about Catholics who went to confession over and over again and didn’t ever really change.

On ecclesiological and sacramental issues, my upbringing was “very Protestant” in a radical Pietist kind of way.

As I began to study church history, I was initially drawn to the Reformed tradition. I chose to study the Reformation in grad school precisely because I realized that the version of evangelicalism I’d grown up with was quite different from classical, Reformational Protestantism.

I have not seen myself theologically in primarily Protestant terms since 1998, I would say. Since then, I have been Protestant only in the sense that I was unwilling to reject Protestant expressions of the faith as part of the Christian spectrum–and indeed I’m still not. I have long believed and still believe that Protestant distinctives are valuable when they aren’t seen in opposition to the historic deposit of the Faith as it has been preserved by the Catholics and the Eastern Churches. But how that is to happen, and whether it is possible within the framework of orthodox Catholicism as currently defined, and whether I ought to convert to Catholicism personally–those have been the questions for me.

I’m not sure why you are asking this or if I have given you the information you needed.

Edwin

 

[steido01]

…]I have been Protestant only in the sense that I was unwilling to reject Protestant expressions of the faith as part of the Christian spectrum–and indeed I’m still not. I have long believed and still believe that Protestant distinctives are valuable when they aren’t seen in opposition to the historic deposit of the Faith as it has been preserved by the Catholics and the Eastern Churches. But how that is to happen, and whether it is possible within the framework of orthodox Catholicism as currently defined, and whether I ought to convert to Catholicism personally–those have been the questions for me.

I’m not sure why you are asking this or if I have given you the information you needed.

It’s comforting to read that others have similar apprehensions. Do you ever plan to publish your thoughts throughout your conversion process?

 

[Contarini]

It’s comforting to read that others have similar apprehensions. Do you ever plan to publish your thoughts throughout your conversion process?

I have posted occasionally on my blog and hope to do more in the future. This post from a few years ago lays out my ecclesiological views in a somewhat systematic way.

Edwin

 

[Indifferently]

Edwin - the natural end of someone who follows the pietist/holiness doctrines would find a natural home in Rome.

 

[benjohnson]

I have posted occasionally on my blog and hope to do more in the future. This post from a few years ago lays out my ecclesiological views in a somewhat systematic way.

Edwin

You manifesto stikes me that any hesitation on being Catholic would be ameliorated if the Catholics would adopt the Lutheran definition of the church rather than the hopelessly triumphalist definition in use today.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin - the natural end of someone who follows the pietist/holiness doctrines would find a natural home in Rome.

Not really. It’s one way in which one may develop some premises found in that movement and remedy some of its deficiencies. But there are others.

Some folks from my kind of background move away from any attachment to historic Christian orthodoxy at all.

Others remain pietistic Arminians, perhaps developing more theologically nuanced ways of expressing their convictions than those they grew up with. In some cases these may be unorthodox (open theism, for instance).

And others find classical Protestantism to be their “natural end,” because they value the traditionally Protestant elements of their heritage above the other elements that are less compatible with historic Reformation theology.

The first of these options was the one I was taught to regard with most horror. The second was never a serious option for me, partly because I wasn’t aware of what I’d call sophisticated Arminian theologies, and partly because by the time I began studying theology seriously my bent of mind was already fixed in a very tradition-loving, perhaps even nostalgic direction.

I looked at the last option very seriously, and as I said above I initially took it more seriously than I did Catholicism. So while I never was Lutheran or Reformed, I am certainly aware of those alternatives and spent a good deal of time examining them.

Finally, of course you ignore not only high-church Anglicanism (which is perhaps pardonable) but the Eastern Church, which is not. Many folks from a Wesleyan heritage find their “natural end” in Orthodoxy–indeed, many would argue that there’s a more natural fit between Wesleyanism and Eastern theology than between Wesleyanism and Latin Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You manifesto stikes me that any hesitation on being Catholic would be ameliorated if the Catholics would adopt the Lutheran definition of the church rather than the hopelessly triumphalist definition in use today.

It’s not at all clear to me that the official definition is hopelessly triumphalist at all. (Of course, the way Catholicism is usually presented on this forum is hopelessly triumphalist.)

And no, the Lutheran definition isn’t better, in my opinion. I have Martin Chemnitz to thank for my clarity on this as on other issues (he ought to be studied by anyone who is interested in Catholic-Protestant disputation, since he’s by far the best apologist for the Protestant side I have ever encountered). Chemnitz said, memorably and accurately, that Catholics define true doctrine by the true Church while Protestants do it the other way round. At the time, I found Chemnitz’ statement a good argument for Protestantism. Then I came to realize that it was really a stronger argument for Orthodoxy. Then I came to believe that in fact the Catholic priority was right.

The reasonable worry about the Catholic position is that it’s arbitrary–believe whatever the Church tells you. And indeed, one reason why I think the Catholic position is superior to the liberal Protestant one (which in some of its forms, especially in Anglicanism, really does place the Church above doctrine) and the Orthodox to the conservative Protestant one is that Catholics and Orthodox both combine these two ways of thinking. It’s simply that for Catholics the community is more fundamental, and for Orthodox the doctrines are. The Orthodox think that the Church is very important and confess its unity and infallibility. They believe in apostolic succession. But they define the Church as the community which has faithfully preserved the Tradition. Catholics insist that the Church does teach true doctrine, and they are willing to support this claim by substantive argument. But their loyalty is given to a specific community gathered around bishops in communion with the Pope, because they believe that this is the community Christ established. The faith that this community teaches true doctrine is essential but derivative. And I’ve come to believe that that’s the right order, because Christian truth is personal and relational, not primarily propositional.

Edwin

 

[steido01]

It’s not at all clear to me that the official definition is hopelessly triumphalist at all. (Of course, the way Catholicism is usually presented on this forum is hopelessly triumphalist.)

And no, the Lutheran definition isn’t better, in my opinion. I have Martin Chemnitz to thank for my clarity on this as on other issues (he ought to be studied by anyone who is interested in Catholic-Protestant disputation, since he’s by far the best apologist for the Protestant side I have ever encountered). Chemnitz said, memorably and accurately, that Catholics define true doctrine by the true Church while Protestants do it the other way round. At the time, I found Chemnitz’ statement a good argument for Protestantism…

Gotta respect “Second Martin’s” work, whether agreed or disagreed.

So, do you see the current Roman definition of ‘Church’ as entirely dependent on Apostolic Succession, or is it pliable enough to support a change – er, I mean – development that would be more inclusive of other Christian bodies? Something more akin to the Lutheran understanding of “wherever the Word is preached and Sacraments rightly administered”? Sometimes I wonder if the groundwork is already laid with the familiar ecumenical phrases (I’m thinking specifically of CCC 818-819, Nostre Aetate, etc.). It’s easy to meet in the middle from the Lutheran side, since we’d already acknowledge that Rome has the sacraments and the Word (however obscured Wittenburg understands them to be under the Bishop of Rome). Is there reason to be hopeful here, or is this just my wishful thinking? Maybe I’m not thinking about this in the right direction; I’m not sure I’ve clearly articulated my thoughts in this jumble of a paragraph.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Luther explains this theology better in his Heidelberg Disputation (1518):

bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php

Points 19-21 more specifically.

 

[benjohnson]

It’s simply that for Catholics the community is more fundamental, and for Orthodox the doctrines are.
Edwin

Thanks for your well thought-out reply… I’m enjoying your process.

I was wondering how you’d separate Orthodox and Catholics. Lutherans would side with the Orthodox on this as we’re comfortable with empty pews and and crumbling churches and expect it per Mathew 7:14.

That said, Lutherans also define community broadly and take comfort in our Christian friends who don’t commune with us in this world under the sun.

 

[Contarini]

Gotta respect “Second Martin’s” work, whether agreed or disagreed.

Indeed. He and Johann Gerhard both deserve to be much better known in the Christian world as a whole than they are.

So, do you see the current Roman definition of ‘Church’ as entirely dependent on Apostolic Succession, or is it pliable enough to support a change – er, I mean – development that would be more inclusive of other Christian bodies? Something more akin to the Lutheran understanding of “wherever the Word is preached and Sacraments rightly administered”? Sometimes I wonder if the groundwork is already laid with the familiar ecumenical phrases (I’m thinking specifically of CCC 818-819, Nostre Aetate, etc.).

Well, the current position is that the fullness of the Church depends on apostolic succession, as do valid sacraments. Obviously that’s the sticking point. I don’t see Rome moving from this, but hey, someone 100 years ago would probably be surprised at how far they have moved. What is clear is that past teaching will never simply be abandoned–nor should it be.

I myself would like to see further development especially on the sacraments. One of the biggest sticking points for me is the question of the Real Presence in Protestant Eucharists. I don’t think that current teaching excludes the view that Christ is present in Protestant Eucharist by what Anglo-Catholics used rather stuffily to call “uncovenanted mercy.” But of course Catholics on this forum are very fond of proclaiming that Protestant Eucharist is nothing more than bread and wine. I would like to see this question developed further, but it may be that on this issue Catholics will never go beyond the Orthodox line "we know where it is but we don’t know where it isn’t (speaking in that case of the Church). Even a clear statement to that effect (that Catholics are agnostic rather than dismissive of the possibility of the Real Presence in Protestant Eucharist) would be wonderful, if it ever comes.

It’s easy to meet in the middle from the Lutheran side, since we’d already acknowledge that Rome has the sacraments and the Word (however obscured Wittenburg understands them to be under the Bishop of Rome). Is there reason to be hopeful here, or is this just my wishful thinking? Maybe I’m not thinking about this in the right direction; I’m not sure I’ve clearly articulated my thoughts in this jumble of a paragraph.

My main problem is the language of “meeting in the middle.” I don’t think that should be how we think about it at all. Surely ecumenical dialogue ought to be about seeking for the truth, whether that’s found in the middle or closer to one end, or somewhere else entirely?

Protestants, after all, don’t have a doctrine of infallibility. So they don’t have the same reasons to rule out from the start the possibility that they are simply wrong about some doctrinal issues. I don’t think Catholic-Protestant dialogue can or should proceed from an assumption of equality.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for your well thought-out reply… I’m enjoying your process.

I was wondering how you’d separate Orthodox and Catholics. Lutherans would side with the Orthodox on this as we’re comfortable with empty pews and and crumbling churches and expect it per Mathew 7:14.

Surely not “comfortable”?

But I get your point, and in fact Pope Emeritus Benedict would in some sense agree. I don’t think that’s what I’m talking about at all in citing the Chemnitz quote. Indeed, loyalty to the Church first and foremost means that one doesn’t look around for a “purer” church but also doesn’t look around for a “more effective” church. Modern Protestantism is much more concerned with the latter than the former, very much to its detriment.

I think you may be confusing the silly arguments of some Catholics (as if their numbers and historical expansion make them the True Church) with Catholic teaching. Or perhaps I simply misunderstood you.

Edwin

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Surely not “comfortable”?

But I get your point, and in fact Pope Emeritus Benedict would in some sense agree. I don’t think that’s what I’m talking about at all in citing the Chemnitz quote. Indeed, loyalty to the Church first and foremost means that one doesn’t look around for a “purer” church but also doesn’t look around for a “more effective” church. Modern Protestantism is much more concerned with the latter than the former, very much to its detriment.

I think you may be confusing the silly arguments of some Catholics (as if their numbers and historical expansion make them the True Church) with Catholic teaching. Or perhaps I simply misunderstood you.

Edwin

Do you believe the Real Presence of Christ is absent from modern Protestantism?

 

[Contarini]

Do you believe the Real Presence of Christ is absent from modern Protestantism?

I don’t know.

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

I think you may be confusing the silly arguments of some Catholics (as if their numbers and historical expansion make them the True Church) with Catholic teaching. Or perhaps I simply misunderstood you.
Edwin

Given that I usually don’t know what I’m saying, I’m usually misunderstood.

There’s a nagging thought that runs through my head - that perhaps we would need to reunite the Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic and Orthodox churches to have to ‘one true church.’ There’s much to cherish in all of them.

To get back on point - I don’t find Catholic claims to be the immutable church especially persuasive, as even some Catholics (SSPX et al) find the claim to be suspect.

 

[steido01]

Well, the current position is that the fullness of the Church depends on apostolic succession, as do valid sacraments. Obviously that’s the sticking point. I don’t see Rome moving from this, but hey, someone 100 years ago would probably be surprised at how far they have moved. What is clear is that past teaching will never simply be abandoned–nor should it be.

That’s about what I understand, too. And I wouldn’t expect or ask Rome to necessarily abandon its previous teachings for the sake of unity - what good is unity at the expense of Truth? Sorry if I somehow gave that impression.

I myself would like to see further development especially on the sacraments. One of the biggest sticking points for me is the question of the Real Presence in Protestant Eucharists. I don’t think that current teaching excludes the view that Christ is present in Protestant Eucharist by what Anglo-Catholics used rather stuffily to call “uncovenanted mercy.” But of course Catholics on this forum are very fond of proclaiming that Protestant Eucharist is nothing more than bread and wine. I would like to see this question developed further, but it may be that on this issue Catholics will never go beyond the Orthodox line "we know where it is but we don’t know where it isn’t (speaking in that case of the Church). Even a clear statement to that effect (that Catholics are agnostic rather than dismissive of the possibility of the Real Presence in Protestant Eucharist) would be wonderful, if it ever comes.

Bingo. I’m right with you. Corporate reunion might not happen until the church catholic is so persecuted it has no other choice, but Sacramental agreement seems so obvious an avenue for closer relations. I don’t understand the seeming desire of some Roman Catholics to play “keep-away” with sacramental validity. I know you’ve probably read volumes more Cardinal Ratzinger than I, and I think I’ve seen you comment briefly about his 1993 Letter to Bishop Hanselmann… do you think the good Pope Emeritus is signaling the very possibility you’ve outlined with his statement, “Even a theology along the lines of the concept of apostolic succession, as is in force in the Catholic and the Orthodox Church, should in no way deny the saving presence of the Lord in the Evangelical * Lord’s Supper.” ?

My main problem is the language of “meeting in the middle.” I don’t think that should be how we think about it at all. Surely ecumenical dialogue ought to be about seeking for the truth, whether that’s found in the middle or closer to one end, or somewhere else entirely?

Certainly. Poor choice of words on my part - I promise, that’s not reflective of my ecumenical mindset (after all, I’m a cantankerous Missouri Synod Lutheran). That’s what I get for typing on my phone at 3:00am when the baby won’t sleep.

Protestants, after all, don’t have a doctrine of infallibility. So they don’t have the same reasons to rule out from the start the possibility that they are simply wrong about some doctrinal issues. I don’t think Catholic-Protestant dialogue can or should proceed from an assumption of equality.

Understandable, especially from an obedient [almost] Roman Catholic. But Rome has the ability to develop doctrine. Lutherans are bound to their Confessions as an unchanging reflection of Scripture that does not err. It seems to me that Rome is the more pliable partner.

Thanks for all your dialogue, Edwin. It’s fantastic to learn from someone who has such an expansive knowledge not only of Roman Catholicism, but of Christianity in general.*

 

[Tomyris]

I don’t know.

Edwin

Which kind of don’t know is that? That the answer cannot be found, or that there is an answer but you have not found it, or you have made a commitment to agnosticism on this? Or something else?

 

[Contarini]

Which kind of don’t know is that? That the answer cannot be found, or that there is an answer but you have not found it, or you have made a commitment to agnosticism on this? Or something else?

It’s a combination of things. Here’s a longer answer:

The “Real Presence” can be defined in several ways. Protestants pretty much by definition do not believe in it in the fully Catholic sense. The Catholic Church and Protestants, then, agree that Christ is not present in Protestant Eucharist in the way that Catholics say He is present in Catholic Eucharists. So this is quite probably true.

However, for me personally (in this I remain a good Anglican) what is important is that Christ is present. It seems captious to demand that Christ must be present in some particular way or else His presence is of no value.

And I believe firmly that Christ is in some way present in all Eucharistic celebrations.

The Eucharistic presence is a mystery, to be received gratefully wherever it offers itself and not to be spurned or over-analyzed.

This is perhaps my biggest difficulty in becoming Catholic, although women’s ordination is also up there.

Edwin

 

[Novocastrian]

Certainly. Poor choice of words on my part - I promise, that’s not reflective of my ecumenical mindset (after all, I’m a cantankerous Missouri Synod Lutheran). That’s what I get for typing on my phone at 3:00am when the baby won’t sleep.

One imagines that a sleep-deprived LCMS Lutheran might be in an ecumenist’s ‘room 101’…

 

[Tomyris]

Do Catholics regard Luther’s theology of the cross as an extension of and integral to Catholic theology, or alien to it?